Database using Access 2.0

[LMB]

Our church purchased Church Windows software. When we asked if we could
import our members from our existing database Greentree CDMS they said we
couldn't because CW is an Access 2.0 database and we don't have that
software. What would be the benefit of still using Access 2.0 for software
development?

Thanks,
Linda

 

[Allen Browne]

Hi Linda

I doubt there are many new programs being written in Access 2. It was a
great piece of software, and many databases were writing using it. I don't
know Church Windows, but I am guessing that it was written back in the
Access 2 days (around 1994), and the people you purchased it from are still
supplying and supporting it.

Depending how they have set it up (security etc), you may be able to use a
later version (e.g. Access 97) to link the tables in the CW database, and
run a series of append queries to add records to the file (assuming you can
get them out of Greentree CDMS.) If the database is written really well and
not using Access security, that might be feasible. But last time a client
asked me to do that with them, it ended up being really time consuming as
the amount of unnormalized stuff being stored in that accounting program was
unbelievable. Unless your church has thousands of people, it might be
simpler to just enter the data.

 

[Chris Mills]

What would be the benefit of still using Access 2.0 for software

development?

None, except existing software (which may be a good reason!). A2.0 works fine
if you have someone to support it. These days, you'd be hard pressed to find
anyone (besides the odd Allen!) who even wants to know about it.

Even all the coding has changed, though A2.0 coding is mostly still
legacy-supported. But it will give any NEWER "Access Developer" the hiccups.
Anything from A97 onwards is basically the same coding.

A2.0 is a short-term solution. Since you seem to be in touch with the supplier
then they should be able to offer a later version (not necessarily drastically
changed). It depends on whether you expect the supplier to maintain it, or
whether you obtained it with source code and might potentially get someone
else to maintain it.

So far as I know, A2.0 works as fine as it ever did on all current Windows. I
still have some myself. I would not recommend it nowadays for any new
purchase. Mainly because I'd then be irreplaceable!!!

Chris

 

[LMB]

Thanks, Allen and Chris. The lady that helped the church decide on the
program feels bad because the application used is Access 2.0 but I thought I
read somewhere that it worked better than then newer versions for some
reason that I can't recall. I was thinking it may have been in one of the
access groups but I couldn't find it anywhere. I wanted to put her mind at
ease. I think it's going to be ok because the company does support the
application and we get updates as they come out so I don't see a problem
other than the one import issue.

Linda

 

[Brendan Reynolds]

I would not use Access 2 for a new application today (though I believe we
still have quite a few customers using Access 2 solutions that we developed
in the past). But I can think of a few arguments that could be put forward
in its favour. It is fast, small (you could deploy a run-time installation
using four diskettes) and it will run on old, under-powered hardware and
older versions of Windows.

I've just been reading a magazine article which says there are an estimated
70 million Windows 98 users. Of course, you don't have to go all the way
back to Access 2 to be compatible with Windows 98, but that figure does help
to illustrate why adopting the latest version is not always the best
decision.

Did you ask the vendor for their reasons?

 

[LMB]

Good Idea, I just sent the question. I'll let you all know what they
say.......Linda

 

[Craig Alexander Morrison]

Even all the coding has changed, though A2.0 coding is mostly still
On that subject I recently migrated a system we developed in 1994 using
Access 1.1 and then 2.0.

The migration was just to demonstrate the old system as opposed to use it
but I was pleasantly surprised to see that it converted to Access 2003 with
a great deal of ease with just the references set to VBA, Access 11 Object
Library and the 2.5/3.5 DAO Compatibility Library.

This was a large reference site so the fact that it almost all works would
suggest that similar conversions would work with a bit of tweaking.

BTW I tried using 3.6 DAO but errors around Snapshots and Dynasets (whatever
they were (vbg)) were sprouting up everywhere.

--
Slainte

Craig Alexander Morrison
Crawbridge Data (Scotland) Limited

Small Business Solutions Provider

 

[LMB]

Since I just sent the question not too long ago and already have a response,
I think that's good. here is the response....


Since Access 2.0 supports 32 bit applications we have decided not to change.
32 bit applications still dominate the desktop world. We are currently
redesigning the financial module which I believe will have a SQL backend.


Linda

 

[Brendan Reynolds]

The only real problem we had was with 16-bit OCXs. Because Access 2 didn't
have a tab control, pretty much all of our Access 2 apps used a 16-bit
tab-strip OCX. Other than that though, it wasn't too painful.

 

[Brendan Reynolds]

Hmm ... perhaps you should be worried after all. That answer doesn't make
sense. I'm not sure just what they mean by 'supports' in this context, but
Access 2 is 16-bit. Access 95 was the first 32-bit version of Access.

 

[Craig Alexander Morrison]

Access 2.0 is 16bit it does not know about 32bit. However it will run on
most 32bit OS and indeed it runs on some 64bit OS.

--
Slainte

Craig Alexander Morrison
Crawbridge Data (Scotland) Limited

Small Business Solutions Provider

 

[Craig Alexander Morrison]

Being late into Access 97 (we had a bad experience with the Access 95 Beta)
I almost overdosed on the tab control. (vbg)

I now love the 7 nested levels of subform using 1 or 2 just for layout and
to open groups of forms and subforms.

--
Slainte

Craig Alexander Morrison
Crawbridge Data (Scotland) Limited

Small Business Solutions Provider

 

[LMB]

OH..see I have no clue what that means so I just believed him.

 

[Brendan Reynolds]

Even if it was true, it still would not have answered the question in any
meaningful way.

On the other hand, I shouldn't jump to conclusions about an application that
I haven't seen, based on one person's answer to a single question. I hope my
'perhaps you should be worried' comment hasn't unduly alarmed you. If the
app meets your needs, then there may not necessarily be any great cause for
concern. The answer you received makes me suspicious, but it doesn't
conclusively prove anything.

 

[LMB]

Not to worry. I just do the software installs and general tech support for
the church. We had a church database managment system that they had been
using for years and it seemed fine to me but the new manager wanted to get
something new. They purchased it in November and are still updating both
systems and using features from one that aren't on the other because the
manager doesn't want any records copied from one to the other, he wants to
wait until all the people have filled out their "update your information"
sheets turned in..haha good luck!. My query was to help the lady not feel
so bad about knowing it was based on access 2.0 that is knowledgeable about
database design who was on the committe to decide which program to buy. I
don't think she had that much say anyway because she agreed with me that the
other database was fine, the users just needed to read the book.

Thanks, Brendan

 

[Chris Mills]

Anyway, I don't have a problem with A2.0 PROVIDED it is supported by a
supporter (!), which seems to be so in this case. A2.0 (and for that matter
A97...) is no longer supported by Microsoft (do they support the current
version?<vbg>)

There are clearly a number of people in the newsgroup still familiar with
A2.0, including at least one of the MS Access Developers, so we can blame him!
(that's a joke, Slainte-blaming you I mean). But LMB seems to have supplier
support, doesn't herself require technical expertese, so why worry, LMB?

In the absence of really negative information, yeah go for it I would say!

Things could be worse, much worse. I could be your technical support )
Cheers
Chris

 

[Tony Toews]

. Mainly because I'd then be irreplaceable!!!

Give me a day or two to make a few smart *ss comments on that one.
<smile>

Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm

 

[Tony Toews]

The migration was just to demonstrate the old system as opposed to use it
but I was pleasantly surprised to see that it converted to Access 2003 with
a great deal of ease with just the references set to VBA, Access 11 Object
Library and the 2.5/3.5 DAO Compatibility Library.

This was a large reference site so the fact that it almost all works would
suggest that similar conversions would work with a bit of tweaking.

BTW I tried using 3.6 DAO but errors around Snapshots and Dynasets (whatever
they were (vbg)) were sprouting up everywhere.

Ah, those'd be easy to convert. Find and replace could almost do it.

Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm

 

[Guest]

I'm not sure I've got this the right way around, but

You asked CW to do the import, and they said that it was too
difficult?

And that was because they don't have a copy of Greentree
or Jade?

If you want, you could export all of your Names and Addresses
from Greentree as an Excel spreadsheet, and then ask CW
to import from that.

It is a little more tricky than just sending off your database, because
you will have to do the export yourself, but the CW people should
be able to handle the import, and may even be able to tell you how
to do it yourself.

(david)